The Subjective

"Subjective" gets no respect in the English language. It is only an adjective. "Objective" on the other hand is an adjective AND a noun. What’s up with that?

Organizations thrive on dealing with "the objective". MBA stuff, the objective gives direction, it is measurable. Good ones are short, to the point and motivating. Just what every good organization wants, a tool for driving the troops. …and I believe in all this!

Problem is that a data -> information-> measurable -> dispassionate approach to decision making looses the richness of subjectivity. The fact is, there is never really enough information to make any decision on a purely objective basis. Organizations should instead embrace subjectivity as a compliment to objectivity, as opposed to pretending that subjectivity is a bad thing.

Now for the cool tie-in. Web 2.0 (or whatever you want to call it) is the institutionalization of subjectivity. Conversation, community, networks are all examples of the nature of subjectivity. An infrastructure based on those principles will allow organizations to leverage subjectivity and make it a true compliment to the objective tools already in use.

With that in mind, I am lobbying that "subjective" be coined as a noun. It could mean the conversation we hope to achieve as an organization.

Design by Community

Acknowledgment to Russ Ackoff. This post is essentially a paraphrase of of his work.

  • Guidelines, policy, organizational direction should be defined by consensus of those impacted.
  • Decisions should be made by empowered individuals.

In my experience, most organizations get it backward. Most policies seem to be handed down from on high, based on recommendations of the "experts". Most decisions try to achieve consensus or must be pushed UP for final approval.

Design by Community / Decision by the Empowered Individual makes much more sense.

The RSS Organization

Lisa Haneberg refers to it as a BKE (Breakthrough Experience) in her essay in More Space. All the pieces seem to fall into place. The picture is unclear, and it is hard to articulate, much less coherently explain it to someone else, but you know it is a significant transition point.

This particular BKE started a week or so when I read People Subscriptions on 43 People, by  Lee Lefever. Something clicked, the idea of creating an on-line identity by aggregating all the feeds from all of your activities. I realize that this is not a fundamentally new idea, mainly just newly synthesized in my head. But the part that has me really excited is applying this concept to  communications  within organizations.

Look at how most organizations communicate internally now:

  • Hierarchical cascade through the chain of command
  • email to anyone and everyone you thinks needs to know  in order to CYA, not that they really care
  • newsletters, virtual and hardcopy
  • townhall meetings and other big venue presentations

…you get the picture. This is all "push". The content producers try to control the message by pushing it to everyone whom they hope to influence. Unfortunately only a small percentage of the information ever makes it through the filters. And oddly enough there are usually people that want the information that never see it. All in all not very efficient, but a world we all know and unfortunately accept.

What if we change the paradigm. What if organizations operated primarily on an information pull approach? Control shifts to the seekers of information. Let every project, every department, every process (basically any and every entity) that exists within an organization manifest as a virtual on-line entity with tags and RSS. (Let’s ignore for a minute the fear and chaos this is likely to cause and assume the necessary skill sets broadly exist.) As a project leader or a department head, I stop focusing on who I need to influence and start focusing on delivering an excellent outcome. Every bit of content the project/department produces gets tagged and syndicated. If my project has value it will be found. Those that want to contribute will be able to do so, Open Source Operations.

I realize that this is worlds away from operations in most (shall we say all) organizations today, but just think of the gains in productivity that could be made with this type of approach. Transparency and integrity are inherently incorporated into the system. Central control, and with it bureaucracy, goes out the window. The best ideas move to the forefront effortlessly. Bad ideas, no matter what power structure conceived of them, quietly drift away.

OK, maybe I am a bit of a dreamer and an idealist, but hey, isn’t that what blogs are all about, the freedom to put your two cents on the table…more to come!

Reason and Emotion

Ever been accused of making an overly emotional decision, without any logical reason? Ever been accused of being Mr. Spock, all logic and no emotion? What I am wondering is why do we (western civ. thinkers) persist in thinking that decision making is an either-or proposition? I believe that emotion is in fact reason, on steriods. Emotion comes from the culmination of all of life’s experience, but it is pre-processed in such a way that it is ready to respond at a moments notice. Most of the time this is a great advantage. I think we should all learn to be more comfortable trusting our emotions and instincts.

On the other hand, cool, collected logic and reason allows us to deal with new situations we have not confronted before. We process more slowly than emotional response, because we are taking more time gathering data. Of course it is impossible to gather all the data, so ultimately even "logical decisions" rely on some amount of embedded knowledge (emotion) to reach a conclusion.

The moral of the story? There is no such thing as a purely emotional or purely logical decision. So pay attention when you accuse someone of making an "emotional" decision, that may in fact be the best way to make the decision. And don’t make the mistake of believing that the "logical thinker" is devoid of emotional components in their decision-making, all decisions are emotional, because no one has all the data.

Lexicon, Oops, My Bad

I like the word "lexicon". When I have the opportunity, I like to use it. It makes me feel smart, or something I can’t quite label. It may be because it is a word that many people don’t use, and when I use it I am often asked to clarify its meaning in context. It makes me feel indispensable, or something.

What I am seeing here is that it is all about how I feel, not about communicating in the most effective way possible. Oops, that is not how it is supposed to be!

Stephen Baker has a post today called Why Jargon Leads to Dead-ends. I agree with him completely, even though I tend to dismiss that advise personally. It is easy for me to see how we got into this predicament.

We all tend to operate in such a way as to put ourselves in the best light possible. If I can show that I have value by virtue of my specialized area of expertise, I will tend to do so. Jargon helps to perpetuate the myth. Unfortunately the unintended consequence is that I make myself unintelligible.

If we can ever come to a collective understanding that what is better for the group is better for the individual, then as a society, we may start to turn the corner on the myriad problems that plague us.

This is a topic that I believe to be extremely important and should not be dismissed. Unfortunately as we move more and more into niches, both on the production and consumption sides of the equation, I believe that more jargon will be created, widening the gap between silos.

I have posted and commented on this previously.
 

“Real” Leadership

Some of us communicate more clearly than others. Scott Adams does it extremely well. Only Dilbert can point to real issues of leadership so effeciently.

Mainstream Awareness

In the last week or so it seems that every MSM (mainstream media) outlet is getting on the ‘Let’s talk about blogging" bandwagon. The most recent one I have seen is in today’s Financial Times, via Scoble. If the management of today’s big companies read this in earnest, maybe some of them will start to adjust their own  worldview (as defined by Seth Godin). A couple of my favorite quotes from the article:

Giving employees free rein to criticise their company’s own products or
to praise competitors is a big departure from the carefully constructed
messages of traditional brand management. But Ms Charman says companies
that insist on carrying the old ways of doing things into the
blogosphere are heading for trouble.

“Business is used to inhabiting a broadcast environment, and that is
not what the blogosphere is about,” she says. “Companies need to learn
that they can’t control the message any more, then they have to learn
that that’s good.”

And

Mr Jen argues that, used properly, blogging can help a company reach
out to its customers in powerful ways. “When you go to an individual’s
blog and read the content . . . people will actually take the
perception they get from an individual and project it on to the company
they work for,” he says. “That perception is often stronger than the
message that the company is trying to [get across].”

Such an
approach requires that companies place an immense amount of trust in
employees to act as capable ambassadors. Mr Jen says that companies may
have little choice. “You could say, ‘I’m not going to allow my
employees to blog,’ but any one of your employees can still go out and
start a blog anonymously,” Mr Jen says.

IMHO, there is a lot of world-shaking going on here and companies that choose not to see it are doing so at their own peril. It is not going to be easy:

For companies, the rising importance of blogging as a communications tool presents a difficult dilemma.

On
the one hand, avoiding the blogosphere altogether seems a bad idea.
Kryptonite, a maker of bicycle locks, was caught flat-footed last year
when an enterprising blogger discovered he could pick his expensive
Kryptonite lock with the end of a plastic pen. Kryptonite’s lack of a
significant blog of its own meant it had no efficient way to respond to
the original blogger’s claim. A video exposing the lock’s vulnerability
soon spread into the mainstream media.

On the other hand,
companies that wish to engage with the blogosphere face an intractable
credibility problem. Bloggers are an anti-establishment lot, and
messages from big business are automatically suspect. In bloggers’
eyes, most companies’ attempts to insert themselves into online
conversation come across as ham-fisted at best, and disingenuous at
worst.

Companies need to engage in the conversation now if they want to survive in a Cluetrain world.

[Editorial Comment: Labeling all bloggers as an "anti-establishment lot" is a bit of a broad-brush that I do not agree with. I think forcing the establishment to look at itself and re-evaluate its own existence is in fact pro-establishment. Too bad most of the MSM does not see this. If you haven’t read the Forbes article yet, you should.]

 

 

Practicing what you Preach

On Sunday the sermon was delivered by a visiting minister from Haiti. The message was good, but that is not what I want to write about. What I found particularly compelling was the personal passion with which he delivered his message, and the authenticity with which he conducts his own life. He serves one of the poorest communities in Port-au-Prince, yet he so believes in what he does that the service he provides is in itself what he most highly values as compensation.

What a model! …if only corporate America could learn from it …

Imagine an organization where the passion for your work was so strong that merely your accomplishments and contribution was enough to satisfy your internal drive. …Easy to say, hard to do. I know I am not yet ready to foresake the "comfort and security" of a nice $$ compensation package. OK maybe this is a little bit too Utopian, so let’s look at what we can pragmatically learn from Pastor Leon’s passion and authencity.

"Practicing what you preach", means walking the talk! You get the feeling from listening to Pastor Leon that he truly practices what he preaches. You know that he is facing the issues, in one of the poorest places in the worls, head on, without excuse. You are sure that if you were to see him working he would be operating with the same conviction and joy in every situation. How often do we see that in our leaders, or even in ourselves? Why is that? How can we have the passion and authenticity of Pastor Leon?

Compelling Connections

Most of my posts tend to be more philosophical than pragmatic in nature. I have been thinking a lot about more tangible ways to imbed these philosophies into an organization. One idea that may have some promise is the process of actively building compelling connections into our everyday (work) lives.

As individuals, as managers, as HR reps, as mentors, etc. begin with asking the question, “what is really important to me?” I think this is the type of question that people do not answer for themselves very often. If you could answer that question with regularity, even every day, it would be so much easier to face the deluge of decisions we each face every day.

You may ask,” isn’t that what professional development plans [or whatever it is that your organization makes you do every year] are all about?” I would say no, because those plans start from the premise of what the company wants of you, and then you need to mold what you do to fit that need.

What I am thinking about is an examination of who you are as in integrated individual that includes your work / home / spiritual / recreational self. What is your passion, what makes you tick? If you really understand this, you will make integrated decisions, and avoid the types of conflicts that arise from the competing parts of your life. If you make your decisions in silos (work, home, etc.) you will create problems and stress.

When you can see what is important to you, you can then make more compelling connections to each aspect of your life.

For me personally, I think my kids hold the key to what is most important to me, though I cannot yet articulate it. But if I go with that, it makes many of my work decisions easier. I want to be the kind of person that my boys can learn from. Many times I am faced with decisions with political implications, or decisions with an easy out versus a difficult ethical outcome. If I put it in context of wanting to set a role model for my kids, the answer is often clear.

Find your purpose, find your passion, and then make the compelling connections to all parts of your life.